Supreme Court Nixes California Wage and Labor Laws for OCSLA Facility
ParkerDrillling Management Servs. V. Newton, 2019 WL 2412907, 2019U.S. LEXIS 4029, (No. 18-389, U.S. S.Ct., June 10, 2019).
By: Don K. Haycraft
33 U.S.C. §1333(a)(1)(A) extends theU.S. Constitution and federal laws and U.S. jurisdiction to “to all artificialislands, and all installations and other devices permanently or temporarilyattached to the seabed” erected for the exploration, development, andproduction of the mineral resources of the Outer Continental Shelf as if thefacility were a “federal enclave” within a state. OCSLA also adopts the laws ofthe state adjacent to a facility “[t]o the extent that they are applicable andnot inconsistent with this Act or with other Federal laws….”[1]
The issue in this case is theinterpretation and effect of "not inconsistent with" under OCSLA. Theemployee in question worked twelve-hour shifts on a platform off the coast ofCalifornia and remained on this platform during his 12 hours off. UnderCalifornia wage laws, the employer is required to compensate employees fortheir stand-by time. The trial judge dismissed the class action suit grantingthe employer’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Ninth Circuitreversed and held that the California wage and hour laws were not “inconsistentwith” federal wage and hour laws.[2]“Application of California's wage and hour laws also does not frustrate aninterest in national uniformity….”[3]
The Supreme Court granted writs, andin an opinion by Justice Thomas, it reversed the Ninth Circuit. Under OCSLA, afacility on the OCS is an exclusive federal enclave.[4]“All law on the OCS is federal, and state law serves a supporting role, to beadopted only where there is a gap in federal law’s coverage.”[5]As the claim for compensation for standby time was covered by federal law, hehad no claim under California law. Likewise, his claim for California minimumwage was also denied as the federal minimum wage law sets the standard.[6]As other claims were not addressed by the appeals court, the matter wasremanded.
We are deeply indebted to Don Haycraft of Liskow & Lewis for sending this decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to us. It was released on Monday, June 10, 2019. The decision may be found at the following link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-389_4g15.pdf
[1] 33 U.S.C. §1333(a)(2)(A) (2018).
[2] Newton v. Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs., 881 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2019).
[3] Id. at 1098.
[4] 2019 U.S. LEXIS 4029, at *20.
[5] Id. at *23.
[6] Id. at *24-25.
